Tag Archives: Mohamed Magid

Two former U.S. government officials made explosive revelations on national radio this past Friday including the charge the U.S. government is a “tool” for the jihadi movement here, and that the driving force behind America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and our foreign policy is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

The exchange took place on the Sean Hannity radio program between the host, Philip Haney (former DHS law enforcement officer with Customs and Border Protection) and Richard Higgins (a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programs at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section).

Both Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins revealed there is a massive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States, and made clear the MB’s influence is so significant they control how the issue of terrorism is discussed and how it is handled at the national security level.

Hillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

When asked about language being scrubbed from the U.S. government Mr. Higgins responded by saying, “What (leaders in the US government) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies.”

He went on to say, “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. And the way they control it is by prohibiting US national security personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil (Haney) had it.”

MB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood: the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him. Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”

UTT has written about the willful surrender to our enemies by American leaders here, here, and here.

With regard to the Marxist/Socialist collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood – as UTT has detailed via the Black Lives Matter/Hamas relationship – Mr. Higgins warned, “Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately respond with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments. That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Philip Haney’s story is devastating to hear because he publicly states he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of terrorists and terrorist organizations from DHS databases which he inputted through the course of investigations he was conducting.

This is a violation of the law. The names removed included several known Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

His story can be found here or here, and his powerful new book See Something, Say Nothing is now available.

Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years: “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”

Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the jihadi threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies.

Philip Haney said it best when he articulated, “This is the first and foremost obligation of the U.S. government: to protect it’s citizens from a threat, both foreign and domestic. And I can also tell you that if we don’t address it voluntarily with courage and conviction now, we’re going to be addressing it involuntarily, and we are going to be at a much greater disadvantage than we already are right now.”

The full audio for the show can be found HERE and the discussion with Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins begins at approximately minute 14.

“You are going to get me killed…I have got my flight back home,” stated Pakistani religious freedom advocate Arafat Mazhar to an audience questioner at an April 20 Georgetown University conference recently made available online. His jarring response emphasized that the conference’s examination of Islamic blasphemy norms in Pakistan and the world beyond was no mere academic matter but involves global, often lethal, threats to freedom of speech and religion.

Mazhar’s statement occurred during the conference’s afternoon panel in an exchange with an audience member from Afghanistan studying in America. Mazhar emphasized that his organization Engage Pakistan currently only supports reforming the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws with theological arguments such that these laws would not have a divine status. Any abolition of these laws, a proposition that has had deadly consequences for Pakistan’s Punjab provincial governor Salman Taseer and Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, would be a much longer term goal.

Just as illuminating and disturbing was Mazhar’s Afghan interlocutor who cited a 2015 Afghan incident in which a mob brutally killed a woman accused of burning a Quran. “Had there been a good anti-blasphemy law” with codified standards, he suggested, “she would not have been killed that viciously.” On the basis of such conjectured more humane executions he accordingly asked, “Is it a good idea to get rid of the anti-blasphemy law or is it good to have a good law?”

Mazhar responded that empirical evidence contradicted such arguments previously made in favor of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. From Pakistan’s 1947 independence to the 1986 completion of these laws, Islamic blasphemy accusations caused only four extrajudicial killings, but after 1986 these killings increased by 2,500 percent. His fellow panelist, University of Notre Dame professor Daniel Philpott, noted that Pew studies had found that blasphemy laws had a perverse “pedagogical effect” in inciting hostility towards the protected faith’s opponents real or imagined.

Ambassador Alberto Fernandez, a retired American career diplomat, concurred on the panel that blasphemy laws are “like handing a loaded gun” to people. He cited a 2005 Sudan case where the government had dropped charges of insulting religion against a newspaper editor, but outraged mobs still demanded retribution. Months later his beheaded corpse turned up after a kidnapping.

Former Pakistani parliamentarian and human rights advocate Farahnaz Ispahani likewise stated during the earlier lunch panel that blasphemy laws in her country “enabled a vigilante culture.” Her fellow panelist, Mazhar’s Engage Pakistan colleague Ayesha Iftikhar, stated that there “you can become a hero just because you went after someone for blasphemy.” Ispahani described how blasphemy laws abetted the “purification of Pakistan” such that only three percent of Pakistan’s population now belongs to non-Sunni Muslim religious minorities, down from 23 percent in 1947.

Ispahani noted that blasphemy’s culture of incitement extended to popular Pakistani television programs watched by millions nationwide. Here Muslim clerics had called for the killing of Ahmadiyya, a small Muslim sect deemed heretical by all other Muslim denominations. Her fellow panelist, Imam Mohamed Magid, and Asma Uddin, an American Muslim religious freedom advocate and lawyer who had appeared on the morning panel, had both referenced public order justifications for Islamic blasphemy laws. Yet such considerations apparently only operated in one direction, Ispahani observed, protecting the sensibilities of Muslims for fear of their possible violent reactions while allowing these very same Muslims uninhibited hate.

Appearing with Uddin, Hudson Institute religious freedom expert Nina Shea analyzed Islamic blasphemy law threats to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. “These blasphemy laws imprison Muslims in a suffocating chamber of blind dogmatism and conformity and extremists are given the last word” while Muslim dissidents and reformers face dangers including death. “The West’s response has been less than inspiring, the West has tended to indulge these laws” by encompassing their content within hate speech laws, as five convictions in France of actress Brigette Bardot indicate. In the United States, “Al Capone-like underlying issues” brought a year-long prison sentence to the filmmaker who violated his parole terms while producing Innocence of Muslims, an internet film that enraged Muslims worldwide.

Shea noted especially the previously obscure Florida pastor Terry Jones, who ultimately made good on his 2010 announcement to burn ceremoniously a Quran, thereby provoking Senator Lindsey Graham to propose speech restrictions. “The United States did not handle that particularly well. There was a parade of generals and government officials that went public and denounced him, begged him to stop,” Shea stated. “This is extremely dangerous, because it raises expectations that the state, that is the American government, will regulate expression on behalf of religion, and in particular one religion.”

The controversial Magid, past president of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), tried to present a benign understanding of his faith. Like afternoon panelist Salam Al-Marayati, head of the equally MB-linked Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Magid cited the oft-invokedQuran 2:256 (“no compulsion…in the religion”) and the Medina Charter. Recently celebrated in theMarrakesh Declaration, an attempt to justify religious freedom on the basis of Islamic sources, this charter of Islam’s prophet Muhammad supposedly “created a pluralistic society” according to Magid.

Magid emphasized Islamic orthodoxy because the “word reform itself triggers negative thoughts in Muslims.” The best approach for winning Muslim hearts and minds is therefore to “take it back to the Prophet. Not reforming, reinforcing the original framework,” he stated, as the “message of Islam is spread through compassion.” He argued that Muhammad did not use force when opponents hurled insults and trash at him or Muslims apostatized.

When Congress returns in January, there will be a robust debate over the authorization of use of military force (AUMF) in Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. But while we debate a bunch of lousy options and the potential cost of lives and billions of dollars arming our enemies in endless Islamic civil wars, the politicians in both parties will never discuss the enemy within the United States. This is where the presidential candidates must lead by example.

However, it is the second half of the equation – the most foundational threat to our homeland and society – that has garnered almost no attention from anyone in politics. That is the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America that have so much influence both on the Obama administration and the Muslim communities in our country.

Three questions should automatically come to mind in light of the San Bernardino attack and the nearly daily incidents of Muslims being arrested for plotting terror attacks or attempting to join ISIS.

Why is our government expunging any mention of Islamic terror from their official documents and hampering investigations into connections to local radical Muslim Brotherhood groups?

Why are so few moderate Muslims speaking out against the growing trend of radicalization?

Why are so many Muslims in America, even those who were born here, being drawn into groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda?

The answer to all these questions, point to the Muslim Brotherhood and the influence of their three North American affiliates that were implicated in the Holy Land Foundation terror trial: the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust.

Last Wednesday, I had the privilege of guest hosting the Sean Hannity show along with my colleague, Deneen Borelli, and we discussed why the Muslim Brotherhood represents a more foundational threat to our homeland than ISIS or Al Qaeda. They are the enemy within that radicalizes American Muslims (the ones that weren’t already radicalized), marginalizes and intimidates moderates, and influences the government to eschew any policy that even mentions Islamic terror much less policies that actually combat Islamic terror.

[My segment on the Muslim Brotherhood can be found here. You will hear national security expert, Patrick Poole, discuss how this problem started long before the Obama administration.]

This is why we need the GOP candidates to step up to the plate. But until now they have largely been silent. Ted Cruz has introduced an important piece of legislation, which would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, but he needs to make this issue more front and center in his campaign.

Just last week, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron took the unprecedented step to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror group after his government launched an exhaustive study into their activities. They will now ban visas to Muslim Brotherhood officials and increase surveillance of their offices. If the liberal Europeans are willing to protect themselves and root out their enemy within, cannot our “conservative” leaders muster the same courage?

Not surprisingly, Obama condemned Cameron’s move as a needless de-legitimizing of a non-violent group. But their use of “non-violent” means of subversion in western countries to marginalize moderates and quietly radicalize the Muslim communities and mosques is exactly what will destroy both America and Europe from the inside.

It was recently reported that the U.K. is experiencing a sharp drop off in cooperation from local Muslims in rooting out terrorists from their communities. Undoubtedly, the Muslim Brotherhood intimidation is a big part of this deterrent against cooperating with the authorities.

Earlier this month, Phil Haney, a former DHS counterterrorism official, wrote an expose on how he was stifled from connecting the dots between some of the very same foreign terror groups Tafsheen Malik was affiliated with and local Muslim groups in America:

“But after more than six months of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?

Worse still, the administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement.”

It’s not surprising that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division (CRCL) was responsible for shutting down the investigation. CRCL is the nexus for the Muslim Brotherhood influence in our government. In 2008, under the Bush administration, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff drafted a memo for CRCL that called on government officials to strip all references of Islamic supremacism from their training. This memo was drafted, in the words of Chertoff, based on “its discussions with a broad range of Muslim American community leaders and scholars.” In 2011, based on the same recommendations of these Muslim Brotherhood “scholars,” DHS published its training and guidance manual on the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda. The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

If ISIS is the new quarterback for Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood is their all-star offensive linemen. In theory the United States should have a great defensive line capable of overwhelming ISIS’ strategy. But with our very own Department of Homeland Security playing ball for the Muslim Brotherhood, the fox appears to be guarding the henhouse.

Jihadist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris have Americans on edge. Yet part of the Obama White House’s response to the attacks has been to invite Islamist groups that routinely demonize the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to the White House to discuss a religious discrimination. “If we’re to succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our strongest allies, rather than push them away,” President Obama said in his speech following the San Bernardino attack.

But partnering with such organizations sends the wrong message to the American people, said Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID).

“I think it says a lot when the president uses those organizations that have an ACLU-type mentality. They should have a seat at the table. That’s fine,” Jasser said. “But not to include groups, which have completely different focuses about counter-radicalization, counter-Islamism creates this monolithic megaphone for demonization of our government and demonization of America that ends up radicalizing our community.”

A White House spokesperson acknowledged to the Investigative Project on Terrorism that the Dec. 14 meeting on countering anti-Muslim animus included Hassan Shibly, executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida chapter. The same forum – attended by Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – also included Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates; Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab-American Institute (AAI); Mohamed Magid, imam of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS); and Hoda Hawa, director of policy and advocacy with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) among others.

The White House guests, or the organizations they represent, have long histories of criticizing counter-terror investigations. CAIR leads the pack. Its Philadelphia chapter is advertising a workshop, “The FBI and Entrapment in the Muslim Community,” which features a spider with an FBI badge on its back, spinning a web of entrapment around an image of a mosque. The workshop “provides the tools needed to prevent entrapment of community members to become terrorists in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Since 9/11, CAIR has repeatedly taken the side of defendants accused of financing or plotting attacks, calling their prosecutions a “witch hunt” against the Muslim community. For example, CAIR denounced the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, who turned out to be the secretary of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s governing board, as “politically motivated” and a result of the “Israelization of American policy and procedures.”

A year ago, CAIR similarly protested the incarceration of Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda” – convicted in 2010 of trying to kill two FBI agents. The protest came after the Islamic State (ISIS) offered to spare the lives of executed American photojournalist James Foley and aid worker Kayla Mueller in exchange for Siddiqui’s release.

CAIR also denounced the December 2001 shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation for Hamas support, saying, “…there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam.”

Demonizing law enforcement and spreading “the idea that America and Western societies [are] anti-Muslim – the whole Islamophobia mantra is part of the early steps of radicalization so that Muslims get separated out of society,” Jasser said. “These groups certainly aren’t on the violent end of the Islamist continuum, but if there’s a conveyer belt that goes towards radicalization then it certainly starts with this siege and separatist mentality.”

CAIR has used such inflammatory imagery and rhetoric for years, with its San Francisco chapter removing a poster urging Muslims to “Build a Wall of Resistance – Don’t Talk to the FBI” in 2011 after the IPT reported on it.

Later that year, a CAIR-New York official told a Muslim audience that FBI agents would break the law to force them to talk. That includes threats and “blackmail, seriously blackmail; that’s illegal,” Lamis Deek told the audience. “But they’ll do it.”

Jasser blames CAIR and others which spread similar rhetoric for the increased fear of Islam and Muslims in America since 9/11 because they refuse to discuss Islamic extremism and the role Muslims have in fixing the problem.

“This creates a climate where people don’t trust us to be part of the solution,” Jasser said. “People say that if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem, which creates more fear and distrust.”

Neither Jasser nor the AIFD, which advocates for “liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state,” were invited to the White House meeting. Also shut out were Jasser’s colleagues in the new Muslim Reform Movement, whose members “reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam” and stand “for secular governance, democracy and liberty. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.”

The White House did not reply to a request for comment about Jasser’s characterization of these groups; however, it previously said it engaged CAIR because of “their work on civil rights issues” despite the group’s Hamas ties.

“It’s a very confusing time and circumstance when you have the White House dealing with people who have fronted for the Muslim Brotherhood and are the spokespeople for Hamas in the United States and you bring them in for a conference at the White House and say they are supposed to speak for the Muslim community in America,” Revell said. “It’s unhelpful to have the White House essentially fronting for groups that want to make it harder to reach the jihadists in our society and in effect flush them out.”

Khera’s group Muslim Advocates has a pending lawsuit against the New York Police Department regarding its surveillance of mosques and other Islamic institutions using undercover police officers and informants.

“One of our key priorities at Muslim Advocates is ending racial and religious profiling by law enforcement,” Khera says in a YouTube video supporting the suit. “We’ve done work to combat profiling by the FBI, by Customs and Border Protection and now more recently we’ve had concerns about the way the New York Police Department – the nation’s largest police department – has been conducting itself.”

Like CAIR, Khera has called the FBI’s sting operations and informants against potential jihadists “entrapment operations” that rope in individuals who might otherwise never engage in terrorist activity.

CAIR’s Shibly also used the entrapment narrative in a June 2014 blog post in which he argued that the “FBI entrapment program targeting the Muslim community” was an example of tyranny. Many other CAIR representatives, such as Michigan director Dawud Walid, previously alleged the FBI has “recruited more so-called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves.”

AAI stops short of embracing the entrapment narrative but labels surveillance programs by the NYPD and other government agencies “unconstitutional, ineffective, and counterproductive.” New York’s Mayor Bill De Blasio disbanded the NYPD unit responsible for infiltrating the city’s mosques and Muslim gathering places looking for potential terrorists in April 2014 under pressure from Muslim groups.

Another group, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which counts Magid as a member, published an article in 2008 written by Hatem al-Haj, a member of its fatwa committee, giving religious justification for not cooperating with authorities. Al-Haj wrote it was “impermissible” for Muslims to work with the FBI because of the “harm they inflict on Muslims.”

However, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which formerly accused the FBI of entrapment, conceded in 2013 that informants can be useful detecting terror cells and keeping them off balance.

“To be fair, informants at times can be effective in counterterrorism investigations even against cellular structures. Because terrorist groups are concerned about their operational security, fear of informants can create and increase tensions within a terrorist cell. As a result, it may generate enough paranoia that a cell may abandon a planned operation,” MPAC said in its 2013 report “Building Bridges to Strengthen America.”

Looking for jihadis before they strike is a bit like looking for a “needle in a haystack,” so sting operations are useful in finding them before it’s too late, according to Revell. He says such operations can be useful in preventing the next San Bernardino.

“If you don’t find them when they are talking jihad and you have to wait until they take an action then it’s too late to be able to prevent casualties and ensure that the public is safe,” Revell said. “There certainly is knowledge among those looking to do any type of jihadi activity that there is a force out there that is countering them and that they need to try to cover their activities to the greatest extent possible.”

In the past year, the Islamic State (ISIS) has published at least two documents instructing its jihadis how to evade being lured into stings by the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies. The ISIS manual “Safety and Security guidelines of the Lone Wolf Mujahideen” devotes a chapter to evading FBI stings by testing the weapons they receive prior to using them in an attack.

Khera’s organization stood front and center in 2011 when Muslim groups called on the Obama administration to purge FBI training materials that they deemed offensive. Shecomplained in a Sept. 15, 2011 letter that counterterrorism materials then being used to train FBI agents about Islam used “woefully misinformed statements about Islam and bigoted stereotypes about Muslims.” Such allegedly misinformed statements included characterizing zakat – the almsgiving tax mandate on all Muslims – as a “funding mechanism for combat” and that “Accommodation and compromise between [Islam and the West] are impermissible and fighting [for Muslims] is obligatory.”

Yet numerous Muslim commentators, including from the Herndon, Va.-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), describe zakat as a funding mechanism for jihad. A footnote for Surah 9:60 found in “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an” published with editorial assistance from IIIT, says that zakat can be used among other things to help “(4) those who are struggling and striving in Allah’s Cause by teaching or fighting or in duties assigned to them by the righteous Imam, who are thus unable to earn their ordinary living.”

The AMJA issued a fatwa in August 2011 stating that zakat could be used to “support legitimate Jihad activities.”

Top Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi similarly states in his book, Fiqh of Jihad, that zakat may be spent to finance “the liberation of Muslim land from the domination of the unbelievers,” particularly against Israel and India in Kashmir.

Numerous Islamic charities have been cited or closed down in connection with terrorist financing since the September 11 attacks. Qaradawi’s actions back up his words. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Union of Good, a network of charities headed by Qaradawi, for Hamas fundraising. That same year a federal court jury convicted the founders of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for illegally financing Hamas.

“The government’s policy has inflicted considerable harm,” MPAC’s Salam al-Marayatiwrote in 2001 after federal authorities closed the Benevolence International Fund (BIF). “By effectively shutting down these charities, it has given Americans the false impression that American Muslims are supporting terrorists. It has also given the Muslim world a similarly false impression that America is intolerant of a religious minority.”

In the end, the White House’s decision to empower these groups sends a mixed message to the American people that it isn’t fully interested in rooting out the causes of jihadist terror and preventing future attacks.

Major evangelical leaders are teaming up with Islamist activists for the Spreading Peace Convocation at a church in Maryland on October 22. Messages of interfaith tolerance against bigotry are always welcome, but attendees should be aware of the incendiary records of the Islamists who will use this platform as proof of their “moderate” credentials.

One of the main speakers is Mohamed Magid, former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and current head imam of the ADAMS Center of Virginia. The Justice Department identified ISNA as an entity of the Muslim Brotherhood when it designated ISNA in a terrorism-financing trial. One of ISNA’s fellow components in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network was successfully prosecuted for financing Hamas.

Magid is currently listed (with a different spelling of his name) as one of the experts of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a hardline Islamist group whose extremism is not hidden. Magid also is a signatory to a letter that received positive media coverage for condemning the Islamic State but endorses all kinds of radicalism, such as sharia governance, rebuilding the caliphate and jihad against perceived oppressors of Muslims.

Another listed speaker is Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who is described as the most influential Muslim-American but also endorsed the aforementioned letter. He also has a history of inflammatory preaching and founded Zaytuna College with other extremists. At one Zaytuna event, Yusuf called for prohibiting speech that “mocks” religion because of the dangers that free speech allegedly creates. What he was calling for was moving the U.S. towards compliance with Islamist blasphemy laws.

And yet another is “Suhail Webb,” presumably referring to Suhaib Webb of the Islamic Society of Boston’s sister mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. According to its own website, the Cultural Center is run by the Boston branch of the Muslim American Society. Federal prosecutors confirmed in 2008 that Muslim American Society was “founded as the overt of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

The Islamic Society of Boston has a radical history that includes being founded by an admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who was convicted on charges related to terrorism-financing. He also vocally supported Hamas and Hezbollah.

The organization’s second mosque in Roxbury, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, also listed the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yousef al-Qaradawi, as an official. In addition to fundraising for the mosque, Qaradawi is ferociously radical and supports Hamas. The Treasury Department blacklisted a network of charities he oversaw for financing Hamas.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance have more documentation of the mosque’s extremism here and here. The ideology was so extreme at the mosque that one Muslim activist, Sheikh Ahmed Mansour, said, “Their writings and teachings were fanatical. I left and refused to go back to pray. I left Egypt to escape the Muslim Brotherhood, but I had found it there.”

Webb also says Muslims should refuse to work with the FBI unless the FBI restores its relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI severed ties with due to evidence tying it to Hamas.

He also condemned secularism as a “radical, lunatic ideology…we’re talking about the loss of holy power in politics. It’s very difficult to find any place in the world now that is ruled by someone who is ruling by divine authority.” He said that only the Islam of Prophet Mohammed’s era is equipped for political rule today.

Two of them evangelical leaders are Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Church in Texas and Pastor Joel Hunter of Northland Church in Florida. Hunter sits on the boards of the National Association of Evangelicals and the World Evangelical Alliance. The two previously went on an interfaith trip to Iran to meet with regime-approved clerics and came back regurgitating its propaganda. Roberts also had a major Islamist-filled interfaith event in Texas and Hunter has his own unsettling history of political activism on issues related to Islamism and the Middle East.

Other Christian leaders include Pastor David Anderson of Bridgeway Community Church, Dr. Rick Love of Peace Catalyst International and Pastor John Jenkins of First Baptist Church Glenarden, who is hosting the event.

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents show the network was instructed to embrace interfaith allies for political purposes. One such file is a 1991 memo that describes its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

When the Brotherhood says “their hands,” they are referring to non-Muslim hands in the U.S. It then tells its network to “possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption,’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.” It then lists ISNA as the very firstcomponent of this network—yes, the same ISNA that was led by one of the event’s main speakers.

Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, work with interfaith partners to develop political alliances, broaden their platform and solidify their status as the “moderate” Muslim-American leadership.

They then use this platform to deflect legitimate concern about Islamism, manipulating it to defame their critics. Radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood tar opponents with the “Islamophobe” label that they even slap onto their fellow non-Islamist Muslims.

Constructive interfaith dialogue requires knowledge and honesty. Participants should be aware of their partners’ histories and views and, when it comes to Muslim involvement, be as inclusive as possible to make sure that the anti-Islamist Muslims who often struggle for a platform are not left out.

This is the third in a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

The truth always offends those who do not have it.

In the Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as follows: “To mention anything concerning a person (Muslim) that he would dislike (Um Dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, r2.2).” The Quran, the Hadith, and a consensus of the Muslim scholars all agree that anyone who insults the Prophet and/or Islam must be killed (e.g. Surah 9:12, Hadith – Abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i, from Ibn-‘Abbas). The punishment for Slander in Islam is death.

Currently, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – the largest international body in the world second only to the UN, made up of all 57 Islamic nations on the planet – is officially calling for “deterrent punishments” (Section VII, para 3) for anyone who offends Islam, and continues to petition the United Nations for such action. This campaign is called “Islamophobia.”

Islamophobia is the imposition of the Islamic Law of Slander. To be called an “Islamophobe” is to be threatened.

Book R of the Um Dat al Salik (Islamic Sacred Law) is entitled “Holding One’s Tongue.” Section 8 is “Lying” with a sub-section titled “Permissible Lying.” This alone is telling. The Sharia quotes the Prophet Mohammad from the authoritative Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim: “I did not hear (the Prophet) him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife.”

The law is clarified further: “It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…it is obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory (ibid, r8.2).” Jihad is obligatory.

The Political Left around the globe, and especially in the United States, also uses lying, deceit, and the destruction of those who speak the truth as weapons for their own ends.

The current “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Summit” is a tremendous example of the deceit of the Obama administration. The U.S. CVE program was adopted from our British allies who created this program in tandem with the British Muslim Brotherhood (MAB and MCB). This ongoing effort identifies “Violent Extremists” as the threat to America. Yet, our enemy self-identifies themselves as “Muslims” waging “Jihad in the Cause of Allah” in order to impose “Sharia” and establish the “Caliphate” (global Islamic State). The Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and other intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the federal level forbid the use of the above-quoted terms.

If you cannot define the enemy, you cannot defeat the enemy.

It is worth noting that the DHS CVE Working Group has Muslim Brothers Imam Mohamed Magid and Arif Alikhan as members, as well as Muslim Sister Dalia Mogahed. Magid was the VP then President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which is the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement in North America and a financial support arm for Hamas, according to documents entered into evidence at the largest Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas 2008).

Imam Magid continues as the Executive Director of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia, which is one of three primary outreach partners with the FBI (along with MB group MPAC).

Another lie peddled by this administration is that Muslims were an important part of America’s founding, which is utter nonsense and historically untrue. Two notable occasions where this lie was repeated: March 6, 2011 at aspeech given by the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough (now the President’s Chief of Staff) at the Muslim Brotherhood’s ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia where he thanked MB leader Imam Mohamed Magid for leading prayers at the White House Iftar Dinner (the end of Eid – the celebration of the first Islamic military victory over non-Muslim forces, but I digress). He continued, “A dinner which, as the President noted at the time, is a tradition that goes all the way back more than two centuries when Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House.”

Thomas Jefferson waged war on the Islamic states (Barbary states). We built up the U.S. Navy to “meet the menace” of the Islamic jihadis, and Jefferson himself, as the Ambassador to France – along with John Adams in a letter to Congress – explained the Muslims were waging war on America’s ships and citizens because it was acommand from Allah to do so.

In a speech this week, the President said, “Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

One has to ask, what is the purpose of the President of the United States and his senior advisors repeating an easily refutable lie other than to soften the response from Americans to an overt threat from the Islamic Movement, and aid our enemies.

The President, Attorney General, leadership of both political parties, Cabinet Members, and others all parrot the phrase that this war “has nothing to do with Islam.” Yet, our enemies say Jihad is an obligation Islam commands them to undertake. Either our government is extremely ignorant, naive or this is an intentional move to deceive the public about a massive threat to our security.

Those who speak the truth about this threat are attacked, not just by the jihadi organizations like ISNA, CAIR, and Islamic Centers across the country (not to mention the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU who overtly defend the jihadis), but by the administration.

The Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) previously had one of the best programs in the nation educating senior military officers on the threat of the Global Islamic Movement until ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others petitioned the White House, deeming the training “offensive” to Muslims. This action was initiated after a Muslim, who was not even a part of the course, complained. The proctor for the JFSC course, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, was publicly chastised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey who stated, “It was just totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound.”

It would be nice for the General to provide the public with any of the evidence, doctrine or facts taught about the Islamic Movement or Sharia that were not locked down in truth. He cannot. I know, because I was one of the instructors at that course.

Together, the Political Left and the Islamic Jihadi Movement are silencing those who speak the truth about a real threat to our Republic. The very Muslims and Islamic organizations our government is directly working with are ideologically and practically aligned with ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other jihadi organizations we claim we are fighting.

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Under Obama’s dictates since he entered the Oval Office, the United States government decided to publicly announce a softer approach to countering Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind jihad (i.e., war in the name of Islam). Imam Mohamed Magid has been a centerpiece in Obama’s show of tolerance (of violence) and diversity (of means of death), so much so that he and his organization have been “cited … as the primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

It’s now known that Magid has a remarkable connection to the murderer of two NYPD officers this December.

***

Unlike his approach toward American Muslims, who apparently (at least based on policy since 2009) need the White House to reassure them that they are not “violent extremists,” Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude toward police officers has been hostile from the beginning. Multiple instances mar the six year old administration’s relationship with law enforcement.

The anti-police stance of the administration has been toxically mixed with anti-gun propaganda, and the blatant fanning of racial tensions that have resulted in violence, murder, and even city-wide chaos.

The first example came in July 2009, when Harvard Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by the Cambridge Police department. Sgt. James Crowley saw Gates trying to break into a home, and, not realizing it was actually his own home, arrested Gates. The charges were later dropped by the police, but not before Obama said on national television that the police “acted stupidly,” and further insinuated that the arrest was racially motivated. To make everyone feel better, Obama later held a “beer summit” at the White House, hosting Gates and Crowley in what was presented as some great healing moment. (No word on whether pork or all beef hot dogs were served.)

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder, while noting that the number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13% that year, blamed the increase on illegal gun ownership. In 2013, Holder went on the record saying that he had to tell his son how to protect himself from the police, because, you guessed it, he’s black. Holder said this talk was family tradition.

For his part, Obama came out in support of the 2011 anti-cop and anarchist movement, Occupy Wall Street, who were not only occupying Wall Street, but terrorizing downtown Manhattan.

Then came the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, as he was being violently assaulted and threatened with death while on neighborhood patrol. In what has become a national tradition, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder descended to prey upon the citizens of a small community, calling for “justice.”

In fact, mob justice is what they were looking for.

The next stop for the Obama, Holder, and Sharpton anti-police racial mob circus was Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown by the gun of a police officer who he was attacking and threatening. The case is familiar and fresh enough in everyone’s minds not have to rehash in any detail. Once again, Obama and the administration issued thinly veiled attacks on the police and insinuated that the officers and the department were racially motivated haters.

The caustic and raw social tumult that ensued led to widespread looting, riots, arson (even by allegedly “peaceful” protestors), and even the murder of a friend one of the trial witnesses.

Obama’s, Holder’s, and Sharpton’s carnival of hate then went prime time, this time to the Big Apple. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. And, with a little help from the all-too-willing Mayor Bill DeBlasio, in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, which was caused not by bullets but by a lung condition, the carnival got what they were looking for all along: the blood of police officers.

On December 20, 2014, five days before Christmas, Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in their patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. After weeks of anti-police protests, which explicitly shouted for “dead cops,” Brinsley had bragged to pedestrians just prior to the shooting that he was going to satiate the protestors with their pound of flesh.

***

At this time, you may be asking what Mohamed Magid, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood agent, has to do with the assassination of two NYPD officers. This will be clear to you soon enough. But first it is necessary to understand that the supposedly grassroots protests, in Ferguson and in New York, were anything but organic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at NoisyRoom.net has documented the nefarious players behind the protests, and has an incredible list of organizations involved in the protests. One of the most prominent organizing groups is ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is often found alongside Occupy Wall Street. A little digging into ANSWER’s coalition partners and speakers reveal their roots; groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Free Palestinian Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, the Nicaragua Network, and Korea Truth Commission (you got me ?).

Furthermore, ANSWER is described by DiscoverThe Networks as “a principal player in all anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations… ANSWER was formed a few days after 9/11 as a ‘new anti-racism, anti-war, peace and justice’ group and led its first protest just weeks later against the impending US-led attack on Afghanistan.”

To be blunt about it, ANSWER is a pro-jihad front organization that was fully behind Hamas in this summer’s Gaza war. Hamas, it’s noted, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that the Egyptian magazine claimed Mohamed Magid was a member of.

***

Isn’t it odd that a Muslim Brotherhood front group would lead protests in New York City over the accidental death of a black man in the course of an arrest? Last time I was there, Staten Island wasn’t a center of Israeli-Palestinian debate, and there are no public pictures of Eric Garner smoking hookah or riding camels in Giza. On the contrary, Garner was dealing single cigarettes, and tobacco is decisively haram (forbidden) according to Islamic sharia law.

Puzzling, perhaps, but the Facebook page of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Muhammad ties the story’s loose ends together. According to his own biography on Facebook, Brinsely-Muhammad “Worked at: Islamic Society of North America.” The Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. Hmm.

Who is the President of ISNA, where the cop killer said he worked? That would be Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s advisor to DHS and the National Security Council.

Obama himself addressed ISNA’s annual convention in 2013. You can read about one of ISNA’s greatest influences, Pakistani radical Abul A’la Maududi, here.

Here are a few other facts to consider when contemplating that the Obama and Holder-inspired cop killer was, according to himself, employed at the organization of one of Obama’s most trusted security advisors, the Islamic Society of North America.

ISNA President and Obama advisor Imam Mohamed Magid was a lecturer at Howard University, teaching courses on the Koran.

The Trayvon Martin case only caught on after it was plucked from relative obscurity from a student at Howard University. This student, Kevin Cunningham, began a petition on the website change.org. Said Cunningham, a lawyer, “that’s how I think about life, is to be a social engineer.”

Cop killer Brinsley-Muhammad, who additionally may have attended a Brooklyn mosque associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, martyred himself by suicide in a subway station before being apprehended by police. He’s no longer with us to answer any questions.

In light of Obama’s recent embrace of Communist Cuba, it is worth noting that one of Castro’s last acts as a revolutionary leader was to order the targeted killing of Cuba’s police officers. Why? Police keep law and order on the streets, and because they’re uniformed, they’re easy targets for revolutionaries who thrive off anarchy.

Obama’s six yearlong anti-cop jihad has serious consequences. In 2014, there was an increase of 56% in police killed by guns – 50 officers, compared to 32 in 2013. Since the assassinations in New York, many infractions are going unpunished, as police are reluctant to engage with the community, fearing targeting by assassins and mobs. This is a very tenuous and delicate situation.

It might be worth mentioning, to the next person you bump into who still has a functioning brain, that Obama’s trusted advisor, Imam Mohamed Magid, had the NYPD cop killer as an employee of his nationwide Islamic organization. This, according to his own Facebook bio.

The circumstantial evidence presented above points to a deliberateplan by the administration and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke violence that led to cop killings. These are revolutionary tactics, creating conditions that lead to chaos, anarchy, and eventually the total dissolution of societal trust. After that occurs, people beg for order, in whatever form it offers itself.

Is 2015 the year of the American Spring? In the New Year, several detailed reports will be published that point to deliberate, witting, and eager cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at precisely this end.

by John RossomandoIPT News
September 10, 2014
More than a dozen American Muslim leaders condemned the Islamic State’s (IS) brutal tactics as contrary to Islam Wednesday during a press conference held at the National Press Club.

But in doing so, several speakers urged the public to ignore the terrorist group’s theological motivations.

Talib Shareef, imam of Masjid Muhammad in Washington, D.C., exhorted the media to refer to IS as the “Anti-Islamic” State because its actions run contrary to the teachings of Mohammed.

“This is not an Islamic State of being; it’s not an Islamic State of mind; and it’s not an Islamic State that the prophet himself created in his first state, where he saw this beautiful peace and equality for all religions – Jews, Christians that were there with him,” Shareef said, noting what Muslims call the Medina Charter.

Another speaker, former Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) Tampa director Ahmed Bedier, later wrote on Twitter that IS “is not a product of Islam,” and blamed America for its emergence.

Haris Tarin, Washington director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), moderated the event. It included noted Muslim leaders such as Imam Mohamed Magid, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and member of the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council; Johari Abdul-Malik, an imam at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.; and Humera Khan, head of the group Mufflehun, which aims to keep young Muslims from radicalizing.

Several representatives of the Obama administration attended, including senior adviser Rand Beers, David Gersten, coordinator for countering violent extremism at the Department of Homeland Security; and Kareem Shora, section chief for the bureau of community engagement at the Department of Homeland Security; and Seamus Hughes of the National Counterterrorism Center.

“Long years of experience have shown us that this problem cannot be solved by law enforcement and security measures alone,” Gersten said. “Local communities are the front line of defense and response, and are essential in identifying recruitment, especially as Syrian-based groups look to target Westerners.”

Gersten noted that local law enforcement and members of the Muslim community should be the first line of defense against those intent on becoming jihadists.

Several speakers reiterated their constant refrain since the 9/11 attacks that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, noting the 2005 fatwa against terrorism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America – an organization that currently includes Jamal Badawi, who has endorsed suicide bombings.

Humera Khan offered condolences to the mothers of beheaded American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, saying their murders had nothing to do with Islam. She and Tarin both emphasized that young Muslims need to be taught that the rhetoric used by jihadist recruiters has nothing to do with authentic Islamic teaching.

“Just because someone uses Islamic terminology does not make one a Muslim,” Asma Hanif, executive director and board member of the Baltimore-based Muslimat Al-Nisaat, women’s shelter.

Magid called IS a “cult” that had nothing to do with Islam because it has killed more Muslims than anyone else, demolished mosques and killed Christians in Iraq.

“All of this is against the foundation and teaching of Islam,” Magid said. “It was our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who said whoever mistreats a Christian or a Jew, or any person of another faith, I am his enemy on the day of judgment.

“The Holy Qur’an says whoever takes one life it as if he has taken the life of all of humanity, and anyone who saved one life; it is though he has saved all of humanity.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism challenged Magid, citing Surah 9:29 of the Quran, which IS invokes to justify killing Christians. It says: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Christians have become subject to the jizyah, or poll tax, since IS seized Raqqa in Syria earlier this year and Mosul in Iraq earlier this summer. Those subject to the jizyahface death if they refuse to pay or convert to Islam. IS similarly cited the Islamic law book known as “Reliance of the Traveler” to justify killing Yazidis and requiring them to convert to its brand of Islam to be spared.

Magid insisted that IS had acted outside of the bounds of Islam, noting that Muslim scholars never mandated killing all non-Muslims in Iraq or Syria during the 1,400 years before IS came into being.

“Muslims had ruled this area. Why didn’t they kill them?” Magid asked about Christians, Jews and Yazidis in the area before IS. “We have stated on our web site when I was president of ISNA [that] any killing of civilians, whether by Hamas, whether by the Jihad, whether by x or y, whether by Jewish, whether by Christians, whether by Hindus, whether by Buddhists, it is unacceptable.”

Ironically, IS makes a similar argument against Muslims who criticize the group. Those are not true Muslims, IS claims.

The strategy of disowning radicals and denying their theological motivation is a losing one, argued James Brandon in an article Tuesday.

“When moderate Muslim groups use takfirism (calling Muslims with other views apostates) to tackle extremism, this dangerous and intrinsically intolerant doctrine is therefore not challenged but is instead reaffirmed,” wrote Brandon, an associate fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR). “A better approach is to accept that Islamist extremists, however distasteful their view of Islam, remain Muslims, however much other Muslims, and non-Muslims, might dislike their version of Islam.”

At Wednesday’s news conference, Magid discussed the need for programs aimed at Muslim youth to counter the jihadist narrative that has led to over 300 American Muslims to fight for IS and other jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq over the past three years. The jihadists’ theological arguments needed to be countered point by point, he said.

“There’s nothing cool about being a jihadist! You’re a loser!” said Johari Abdul-Malik, whose mosque has been home to numerous individuals arrested in connection with jihadist plots. “I want to point out that I am black! We never conflated the actions of the KKK with Christianity.”

But one of Abdul-Malik’s colleagues at Dar al-Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed, endorsed the concept of violent jihad as recently as February 2013. During a talk at a Northern Virginia high school, he preached that Muslim men would be last in line except if it was for “arms for jihad.”

America’s Muslim community provides the first line of defense against terrorists acting in the name of Islam, they said. Abdul-Malik suggested imams are eager to work with the FBI to counter terror.

“We are on the front line because we are the ones who are in the chat rooms and on Facebook talking to them and saying, ‘You know what, brother or sister, I think they just went over the line,’ and the data shows that we are the best defense,” Abdul-Malik said. “I have a message for law enforcement. First, I want to thank you … because myself, and other imams, sometimes we get an agent who comes in our office and says, ‘Do you know something about this person or that person?’

“We tell the truth and have saved the lives of many people.”

Abdul-Malik’s sentiments are not shared by other American Muslim groups.

CAIR, which portrays FBI agents as ruthless schemers out to set up Muslims for trumped-up charges, was noticeably absent from Wednesday’s news conference. Its Minnesota chapter obstructed FBI investigations into al-Shabaab’s recruitment of Somali Muslims in the Twin Cities, and its San Francisco chapter published a postersaying: “Build A Wall of Resistance: Don’t Talk to the FBI.”

Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque.
– Salam Al-Marayati, president of the MPAC

Frank Gaffney recently wrote Unsafe Spaces: Islamist Mosques, highlighting what he described as the contempt Islamists have for the United States and the roles many American mosques have for Islamist jihadists. Coming on the 1st year anniversary of the Boston Bombing, Mr. Gaffney’s article notes the roll out of the “Safe Spaces Initiative“, a program being pushed by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The campaign/program’s premise: in order to keep America safe, the Muslim community needs to take a proactive approach to identify and intervene “individuals who may be susceptible to violent extremism.” At first glance, this seems, well … almost patriotic.

The about page of the program’s website continues with this highlight:

MPAC’s Safe Spaces Initiative seeks to help communities create spiritual safe spaces for open dialogue and debate while also providing physical safe spaces by helping mosque and community leaders deal with any misguided individuals.

… and the actual motivation behind the “Safe Spaces” reference begins to come into focus – to create “safe spaces for open dialogue and debate“. In other words, locations where Muslims can discuss matters without fear of being monitored by law enforcement, no matter the subject matter. As confirmation, here’s an excerpt from an article written by Salam Al-Marayati, president of the MPAC:

Safe spaces are created for everyone entering our mosques to be able to have difficult conversations. People need to feel comfortable discussing politics or persecution of Muslims in places such as Palestine or Kashmir or drone attacks that harm the innocent in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Safe spaces are needed so that government informants and extremist recruiters are prevented from violating the sanctity of the mosque. In essence, we want to enhance both a spiritual safety and public safety.

To further understand the impetus behind the campaign, we just need to look at the agendas of the supporters. The Safe Spaces website includes several videos, the first of which is titled, “Online Radicalization: Myths and Realities” (2013) featuring:

Mohamed Elibiary – Founder of Lone Star Intelligence, LLC and listed as a Senior Fellow with the Homeland Security Advisory Council. He was named in a PJ Media story by Patrick Poole for leaking sensitive intelligence reports to the media to push an islamaphobia story to the media. The Dallas Morning News reported that in a letter, Elibiary defended the very anti-American and early Muslim Brotherhood leader/Islamic theorist Sayyid Qutb, stating: “I’d recommend everyone read Qutb, but read him with an eye to improving America not just to be jealous with malice in our hearts.”

Imam Suhaib Webb – currently with the Boston Islamic Society, Webb has very strong ties with the Muslim American Society (MAS)

Rashad Hussein – appointed U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation by President Obama, he has past ties with a number of MB organizations and called the prosecution of terrorist financier Sami Al-Arian as being politically motivated. He was one of six people named in a December 22, 2012 Egyptian magazine article that were Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy. The article also named Mohammed Elibiary.

Dr. Maher Hathout – founder and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and co-founded the Islamic Center of Southern California. His public statements have included support for Hezbollah terrorist acts. He is also reported to be a member of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California (ISCSC), a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood. This 2010 video shows CA Law Enforcement officials giving tribute to the ISCSC

Iman Mohamed Magid – President of the Islamic Society of North America, and Executive Director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS). He was appointed in 2011 by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. According to a 2012 PJ Media article by Patrick Poole, “Mohamed Magid is the Obama administration’s go-to guy for Muslim outreach and advise on international affairs and counterterrorism. ” Magid was also instrumental in having DHS erase from the “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum, any suggestion that Muslim terrorism drew its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam.

Iman Zaid Shakirs– A frequent speaker at CAIR,ISNA and MSA events. According to a report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Shakirs, “… defends terrorist groups such as Hizballah and hopes for a day in which America is a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law” and he suggests that Zionists and the FBI were behind the 1993 Trade Center bombings.

Jamal Badawi – asnoted by the GMBDW, Badawi is the leader in many of the most important Global Muslim Brotherhood organizations. A founding member of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a 2004 Chicago Tribune story identified MAS as the Brotherhood’s U.S. organization.

*in watching this video, take note of the focus of Muslim “victimization”, especially after the 41 min mark.

The author of the “Safe Spaces Tool Kit” is Alejandro J. Beutel – the lead face in MPAC’s organized effort to move U.S. law enforcement towards a community oriented policing model that effectively allows the Muslim community to control the direction taken. Mr. Beutel was a critic of theNYPD surveillance program that targeted New York City area mosques – the program was stopped this month.

In addition to working with MPAC, Mr. Beutel’s work history includes the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) and he was a junior fellow with the Minaret of Freedom Institute. ISPU is basically a Muslim special interest group. According to the GMBDW, “The Minaret of Freedom Institute [is] a lesser known group tied to the U.S Brotherhood and whose leadership includes Omar Altalib, likely a relative of Hisham Altalib, one of the original leaders of IIIT and the SAAR Foundation“.

“… outline a “blueprint” for how Muslim American communities – from a Muslim American perspective – can be an asset to national security. At the same time, this report also provides practical recommendations for law enforcement to uphold civil liberties while maintaining their effectiveness.”

In November 2010, Marylin Stern published a report analyzing “Building Bridges” and MPAC’s related efforts,calling them a “Trojan horse” with a goal to negatively influence U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies operations. Her report reads:

Like the Trojan horse of ancient Troy, MPAC provides cover for jihadists by obscuring the subversive agenda of Islamists like Maher Hathout, Salam al-Marayati, ISNA and CAIR. Upon closer examination, research supports the thesis that contrary to MPAC’s claim to uphold civil liberties, MPAC has exhibited a consistent hostility towards U.S. law enforcement to undermine effective counterterrorism initiatives by placing themselves between the Muslim community and law enforcement. Examples in this research paper have been supported by objective documentation, historical facts, and quotations from original sources to support the following:

1. MPAC’s deceptive propaganda as a civil liberties organization is a facade to subvert U.S. law enforcement in order to further the global Muslim Brotherhood goals to destroy the West from within.

2. MPAC is waging an influence operation to infiltrate and subvert U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies as evidenced by their self-designation as the only voice for the Muslim community.

3. Law enforcement needs to be better educated and informed of the historical philosophy, tactics and strategies of the Muslim Brotherhood in America in order to establish benchmarks identifying and marginalizing front group operations. MPAC’s report, Building Bridges to Strengthen America, Forging an Effective Counterterrorism Enterprise between Muslim Americans & Law Enforcement, does not support MPAC’s claim to be a “trusted resource for decision makers in government, media and policy institutions.” Law enforcement should carry out due diligence before “going a bridge too far.”

Now four years later, The Safe Spaces initiative expands on MPAC’s “Building Bridges” adding several dangerous concepts:

A system where the mosque/Muslim community makes the determination of threat levels and when law enforcement is allowed to be involved.

Establishing a Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with the local community for special handling of Muslims (report page 75)

Providing for an area that is off-limits to law enforcement unless the Muslim community grants permission (report page 47)

A year ago we made mention in “Boston Bombing: cue smoke and mirrors” that Muslim special interest groups would be using the Boston attack to their benefit, pointing out how following the 9/11/2001 attacks, “Muslim activists earned influential positions on advisory boards at Justice and other government agencies promoting “sensitivity” based initiatives that gutted many anti-terror programs.“

ISNA shouldn’t be judged by its pleasant media interviews. Its documented history is where the truth can be found.

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) always denies its Brotherhood connections and says it is “moderate.” Some ISNA officials downplay its origins, insisting that it has charted its own course independent of the Brotherhood. ISNA’s Fiqh Council, its body of scholars, says otherwise.

In 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that ISNA officials say “Brotherhood members helped form those groups but that their overall influence has been limited.” When ISNA is unable to escape the facts, it downplays them.

The same Islamists that birthed ISNA as a Muslim Brotherhood front lead the organization. A 2009 Hudson Institute study concluded, “All but one of the individuals listed on the ISNA founding documents remain active either in ISNA or one of its affiliated organizations.” The Brotherhood lobby members “continue to exist in their original form.”

To understand ISNA, you must understand that its Islamist orientation requires it to adhere to sharia, or Islamic law. Another word interchangeable with sharia is fiqh. The website, OnIslam.net, explains that “fiqh is our understanding and knowledge of Allah‘s Shari`ah.”

When making decisions, ISNA and other groups look to authoritative scholars of fiqh or sharia. It is these scholars that stand behind the moderate “faces” of ISNA like President Mohamed Magid. If you want to know the true nature of ISNA, you must look at its Fiqh Council of North America.

Of the 17 Fiqh Council officials, 14 have strong Islamist records. That is all but one member of the Executive Council and all but two of the Council members. The remaining members are not necessarily moderate. In fact, their inclusion should be considered a strike against their credentials as “moderates.”

The 26-page Special Report includes a detailed chronology, identifies specific Islamic propaganda organizations, and identifies five top “Islamist influence operators” associated with the Obama administration. More than 12 years of Judicial Watch work on national security issues is featured in the Special Report, highlighting information from government documents exclusively obtained by the organization.

If you would like to receive weekly emails updating you about all of our efforts to fight corruption, please sign up here.The heavily footnoted Report centers on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) purge of anti-terrorism training material and curricula deemed “offensive” to Muslims. The curricula purge – documented through a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in June 2013 – occurred following a February 8, 2012, meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and various Islamic organizations. According to the Report, the purge was part of a “broader Islamist influence operation” designed to “influence the opinions and actions of persons, institutions, governments and the public at-large.” The Report also documents incidents of “Islamic influence operations” at the Departments of Justice and State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House.

According to the Report, during the February 8 meeting, FBI Director Mueller assured the Islamic groups in attendance that the agency had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that were deemed “offensive.” One group that met with Mueller – the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) – had been named by the government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing lawsuit, along with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The Report lists the reasons given by the FBI for purging “offensive” training documents:

January 2012: U.S. Military Academy at West Point cancels an address by a highly decorated founding member of Delta Force and former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Jerry Boykin, after complaints from the Hamas front group CAIR.

July 2012: Top DOJ Civil Rights official refuses to vow to Congress not to push Saudi-style blasphemy laws.

September 2012: Obama administration blames attacks on U.S. Embassy Cairo and the “Special Mission Compound” in Benghazi on a YouTube movie trailer.

According to the Report, “The Obama administration has been penetrated by Islamist influence operators, seeking to advance an ideological agenda completely at odds with our constitutional system. The penetration is, in many cases, by the Obama administration’s invitation. Some of the more public and controversial figures associated with the Obama administration have included:

“Rashad Hussain – U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC … has a history of participating in events connected with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Huma Abedin – Long-time personal aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton [whose] late-father, mother and brother are all connected to Muslim Brotherhood organizations or operatives.

“Daliah Mogahed – An advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mogahed’s 2009 book Who Speaks for Islam? is viewed by many as an apologia for the growing power and influence of radical Islamists. Mogahed is an unapologetic defender of unindicted terrorist conspirator organizations such as CAIR and ISNA.

“Momamed Elibiary – A Texas-based security consultant and Islamic cleric who was named to President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010. He has close ties to a convicted Hamas fundraiser and other radical Islamist causes ….

“Mohamed Magid – … President of the ISNA, an unindicted terrorist conspirator organization. Magid was appointed by President Obama to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. From that position, Magid was key in influencing and directing the purge of training materials and policies in the FBI and other federal agencies.”

The Report concludes, “It is fair to say that not a single U.S. government employee goes to work each morning with the mission of identifying and defeating the Islamists’ active measures campaigns. Large bureaucratic institutions are reluctant to ‘disturb’ operations with examinations for deception and manipulation. Those same organizations are loath to raise those subjects in congressional appropriations requests and hearings fearing any political criticism. Until there is someone with the job of defeating the Islamist active measures campaign targeting our nation – and resourced to roll back the Islamists and win – the United States and her citizens are in grave peril.”

They did it again. While we watched President Obama dodge the Syrian red line with Putin taking the lead, while we held our collective breaths as Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and France’s President Hollande stalled negotiations over the Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Islamists were at it again.

This time they cunningly swooped in and placed their wildest dreams into the massive immigration reform bill recently passed by the United States Senate.

Most Americans believe the bill is about amnesty, or a way to grant general pardon for political offenses such as disobedience to immigration laws. For example, most think it will give millions of Hispanic illegal aliens living in the U.S. amnesty. The bill goes far beyond obedience to law. Even pro-immigration Christian evangelicals say the bill is not amnesty. Then what is it?

The sweeping immigration reform bill, called the “Amnesty Bill” has Islamic inferences buried deep inside that should give Americans the shudders, and indeed, the entire world, especially United States allies. The bill reportedly includes a fast track to citizenship for immigrants from Muslim countries. U.S. President Obama hailed the passage of the bill as a critical step towards fixing America’s broken immigration system. While the “Gang of Eight” senators crafted the bill, an outsider, who just happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood associate, provided “treasured input,” according to a close associate of the Obama administration.

Fast tracking Muslims is not new to President Obama. Going back to 2010, Obama issued an executive order to fast-track immigrants from Islamic countries. In short, a person from a Muslim country could become a U.S. citizen in as little as ten weeks, with no I.D. and no declaration of fealty to the U.S. Constitution. The recent Senate immigration reform bill further expands the previously strict qualifications for immigration from Afghanistan and allows more family members to join admitted asylum seekers. In addition, the numbers allowed to arrive from Saudi Arabia is many times that of Afghanistan. If amendments were to be added to the immigration reform bill, more Muslim countries, such as Chechnya, could be added. Refugees from the Middle East could raise Muslim immigration numbers even higher. Could Muslims over take Hispanics?

Speaking of refugees, according to Amnesty International, Jordan is forcibly returning thousands of refugees back to Syria. Why? Because Jordan is experiencing economic and other pressures as a result of accepting so many refugees. Amnesty argues that Jordan’s pressures do not justify such violations of international law. Enter the United States as rescuer. Word is out that Obama intends to grant political asylum to large numbers of Syrian refugees (mostly Muslim). This global picture from Syria, to Russia, to Iran, to Israel to the United States is akin to a chess match, but with far-reaching implications and ramifications.

Who inside the Obama Administration helped to craft the shocking increases in Muslim immigration that is buried deep inside the text of the Senate bill? The input came from Mohammed Magdi, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Magdi is one of six Muslim policy advisors of the Obama administration with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

We used to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, we appealed to common sense. Does it make sense for the U.S. to admit large numbers of refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries, most of which would be practicing Sharia Law? It appears they could become U.S. citizens almost overnight. What a “checkmate” that would be for Islamists!

While the Middle East chess game continues and boils over with political intrigue and potential dangers to otherwise stable governments, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be on the march with tentacles of influence reaching far beyond the Middle East. Taking countries from the inside out is their distinct goal. Egypt seems to have seen the light. What will it take to nudge the rest of the world into the dawn of truth, particularly United States citizens?

When immigration reform isn’t about reform; when amnesty isn’t about amnesty; when the rule of law is not the rule of law, it must be about something else. Could it be that the Muslim Brotherhood brothers already embedded inside the U.S. government are envisioning and planning their worldwide caliphate ruled by Sharia Law to be centered inside the United States of America? Amnesty, America and the Brotherhood. What would (will) America and the world look like with the Islamic flag flying over the White House?

The radical Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t just threaten Israel and Mideast peace. According to the Egyptian press, several of its operatives have infiltrated the U.S. government and are influencing policy here.

The respected Egyptian magazine Rose al-Youssef has identified at least six Brotherhood-tied agents of influence who have worked into positions inside the Obama administration.

The weekly publication, founded in 1925, said the operatives have turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood,” an Egyptian-based jihadist movement that supports Hamas and al-Qaida.

President Obama backed the Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt and has courted its front groups in America. Secret Service records show their representatives making hundreds of visits to the White House since 2009.

“The Brotherhood in America is committed to destroying the West from within,” former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy told IBD, citing secret documents unearthed by the FBI after 9/11. “It has spent half a century building a considerable infrastructure here,” largely with Saudi funding.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “our government has done much to empower the Brotherhood’s American network under the guise of ‘Islamic outreach.'”

It also alleges he helped draft Obama’s remarks calling for former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power. Mubarak had banned the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

• Rashad Hussain, former White House lawyer and now Obama’s special envoy to the Muslim world. Hussain, who has defended convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian and other U.S. Brotherhood leaders, helped draft Obama’s conciliatory speech in Cairo, where he invited banned Brotherhood leaders.

• Arif Alikhan, former assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy development and now a distinguished visiting professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the National Defense University. As a Los Angeles city official, Alikhan worked with the Brotherhood-tied Muslim Public Affairs Council to derail police efforts to monitor radical mosques.

• Imam Mohamed Magid, another Homeland Security adviser, who heads the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, a Brotherhood front named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal plot to raise millions for Hamas.

Longtime ISNA board member Sayyid Syeed is captured in a new documentary, “The Grand Deception,” saying to fellow American Muslims: “Our job is to change the Constitution of America.”

“The level of penetration in the last three administrations is deep,” former FBI special agent John Guandolo said. “For this president, it even goes back to his campaign with Muslim Brotherhood folks working with him then.”

Equally alarming, he says, the group also has placed several operatives and sympathizers within the U.S. military, further threatening national security. Guandolo says the government has ID’d hundreds of Brotherhood and Hamas fronts inside the U.S. but has shut down only a few due to political pressures.

An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.

The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine (read an IPT translationhere) suggests the six turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The story is largely unsourced, but its publication is considered significant in raising the issue to Egyptian readers.

The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood “subsidiary.” It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the “file of Islamic states” in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.

Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood.

Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration’s counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserts that Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim.

According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.

He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji, Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza.

Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure.

Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI.

Rose El-Youssef says Patel maintains a close relationship with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as “a large Brotherhood organization.”